npm-mcp

install

Install project or global dependencies from package.json or named packages, with options for dry-run previews, devDependency saving, and exact versions.

Instructions

Install packages in a project

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "install"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Absolute path to the package directory
`dryRun`	No	Preview install without making changes
`global`	No	Install globally
`saveDev`	No	Save as devDependency
`packages`	No	Package names to install (empty = install all from package.json)
`saveExact`	No	Save exact version instead of semver range
`allowScripts`	No	Explicitly reviewed packages allowed to run install scripts during a global install (npm 12+). For project installs use approve-scripts instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0Oct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / allowScripts

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explicitly reviewed packages allowed to run install scripts during a global install (npm 12+). For project installs use approve-scripts instead.",
+  "items": {
+    "pattern": "^(?:@[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._-]*\\/)?[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._-]*$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 100,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedv1.2.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Install packages.' It does not disclose that installation mutates files, may access the network, can run lifecycle scripts, or what dryRun/global/saveDev actually change at runtime. Some useful security context exists in the schema for allowScripts, but not in the description itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it also reflects the missing behavioral detail assessed elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a seven-parameter mutating install tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not cover side effects, script execution/approval behavior, project vs global semantics, or when a dry run is appropriate, leaving important gaps that the schema alone does not fill.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Install packages in a project.' It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby package-management siblings such as update or link.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without explaining selecting conditions such as project vs global installs or how it differs from update.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server